So here's Primal Savagery, from page 163 of Xanathar's Guide To Everything:
You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal. The spell’s damage increases by 1d10 when you reach 5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).
My question is in regards to the part that's bolded. Is it referring to the cantrip Primal Savagery as the melee spell attack itself, or is it saying that after I cast the cantrip I can cast a proper spell with a range of touch (ergo it being a melee spell) in the same action? I read it the latter way, but my friend read it as the former.
Which is the correct way? Can I cast Primal Savagery and in the same action then cast something like Bestow Curse and stack Primal Savagery's damage on top of the Bestow Curse affect, or is Primal Savagery the melee spell attack itself?
In order to accomplish what you are saying, you would have to have a feature or spell that gives another action (something like Haste in wording, even if Haste can't specifically do it), changes the Leveled spell to a bonus action a la Sorcerer's quickened spell, or specifically enables the casting of another spell (I don't recall any examples, so this is a moot point.)
Compare the wording for Booming Blade, Shocking Grasp and Primal Savagery. Then compare it to Eldritch Blast. A melee spell attack is just telling you that you're making an attack (to hit versus forcing a spell save) using a spell (as opposed to a weapon) in melee (as opposed to at range). The melee part simply tells you that the spell is designed to be cast in melee without incurring disadvantage on the spell as per the PHB.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus. Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9).
As part of casting Primal Savagery you make an attack roll using your spell attack modifier. If you hit you deal the appropriate acid damage for your level. Nothing more.
Thank you all! It probably seemed like an obvious answer, but we're still new to D&D (16 sessions in) and I have zero touch/melee spells yet so the wording was new to me. Thanks for clearing it up!
On a related note for that same wording, it says against one creature. According to this wording, you couldn't use Primal Savagery to use a bite attack to chew through ropes tying your hands or the hands of one of your companions, the ropes being an object, not a creature. To me, that would seem like an excellent use of the cantrip.
Am I reading that wrong? Is that the intent of the spell? Or should it be reworded?
As to attacking a rope, specific outweighs general with regards to rules. If the spell specifically says "creature", that outweighs the general "Choose a target" rule.
On a related note for that same wording, it says against one creature. According to this wording, you couldn't use Primal Savagery to use a bite attack to chew through ropes tying your hands or the hands of one of your companions, the ropes being an object, not a creature. To me, that would seem like an excellent use of the cantrip.
Am I reading that wrong? Is that the intent of the spell? Or should it be reworded?
The designers have made it clear that 1) targeting restrictions (creature vs. object, etc.) are 100% intentional but 2) being flexible about them usually won’t break anything. Strictly RAW, you cannot Primal Savagery the rope, but most DMs should be fine with it, because it really doesn’t break anything to allow it.
Rule of Cool. Work with your DM. I always enjoy creative uses.
For example I've used Primal Savagery to grow out teeth and nails only to roll for intimidation against someone I would likely lose a fight with. It was allowed and it worked, successfully getting me out of what would surely be a large bar brawl .
Because it started as piercing damage in the UA it was introduced in, and WOTC changed the damage type afterward. Probably because of some truly well thought out survey results...lol
I have a character that is an aarakocra ranger with a fighting style of druidic warrior. Since the aarakocra uses talons for natural weapons, would it be reasonable to assume that primal savagery would augment the damage as an action? I would hate to think that a human would gain a greater increase in potential damage for using his transformed fingernails versus a pair of transformed talons that should be considered as a bird-like creature's fingernails.
Primal savagery only does what it says (a melee spell attack with damage and scaling all listed in the spell), not anything else such as augmenting your other melee (natural) weapon attacks. They don't combine.
That's a real shame. I can imagine many DM's allowing it to augment, though. It's not nearly enough to break the game. That's why I'm glad the rulebooks are only suggestions outside of league play. Thanks for letting me know, in case I have a DM that's by the books.
So here's Primal Savagery, from page 163 of Xanathar's Guide To Everything:
You channel primal magic to cause your teeth or fingernails to sharpen, ready to deliver a corrosive attack. Make a melee spell attack against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 acid damage. After you make the attack, your teeth or fingernails return to normal. The spell’s damage increases by 1d10 when you reach 5th level (2d10), 11th level (3d10), and 17th level (4d10).
My question is in regards to the part that's bolded. Is it referring to the cantrip Primal Savagery as the melee spell attack itself, or is it saying that after I cast the cantrip I can cast a proper spell with a range of touch (ergo it being a melee spell) in the same action? I read it the latter way, but my friend read it as the former.
Which is the correct way? Can I cast Primal Savagery and in the same action then cast something like Bestow Curse and stack Primal Savagery's damage on top of the Bestow Curse affect, or is Primal Savagery the melee spell attack itself?
Primal Savagery is the melee spell itself.
In order to accomplish what you are saying, you would have to have a feature or spell that gives another action (something like Haste in wording, even if Haste can't specifically do it), changes the Leveled spell to a bonus action a la Sorcerer's quickened spell, or specifically enables the casting of another spell (I don't recall any examples, so this is a moot point.)
Compare the wording for Booming Blade, Shocking Grasp and Primal Savagery. Then compare it to Eldritch Blast. A melee spell attack is just telling you that you're making an attack (to hit versus forcing a spell save) using a spell (as opposed to a weapon) in melee (as opposed to at range). The melee part simply tells you that the spell is designed to be cast in melee without incurring disadvantage on the spell as per the PHB.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus. Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9).
As part of casting Primal Savagery you make an attack roll using your spell attack modifier. If you hit you deal the appropriate acid damage for your level. Nothing more.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Simply this.
Also spells with range of touch are not melee spell attacks unless they say so (like shocking grasp which uses identical wording as primal savagery).
Thank you all! It probably seemed like an obvious answer, but we're still new to D&D (16 sessions in) and I have zero touch/melee spells yet so the wording was new to me. Thanks for clearing it up!
On a related note for that same wording, it says against one creature. According to this wording, you couldn't use Primal Savagery to use a bite attack to chew through ropes tying your hands or the hands of one of your companions, the ropes being an object, not a creature. To me, that would seem like an excellent use of the cantrip.
Am I reading that wrong? Is that the intent of the spell? Or should it be reworded?
I would just go with the general rules in the PHB that starts with:
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
As to attacking a rope, specific outweighs general with regards to rules. If the spell specifically says "creature", that outweighs the general "Choose a target" rule.
The designers have made it clear that 1) targeting restrictions (creature vs. object, etc.) are 100% intentional but 2) being flexible about them usually won’t break anything. Strictly RAW, you cannot Primal Savagery the rope, but most DMs should be fine with it, because it really doesn’t break anything to allow it.
Thanks! I suspected that was the case, but wanted to make sure.
Why this cantrip is acid damage?
Sadly the answer is likely just "Because Reasons"
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Rule of Cool. Work with your DM. I always enjoy creative uses.
For example I've used Primal Savagery to grow out teeth and nails only to roll for intimidation against someone I would likely lose a fight with. It was allowed and it worked, successfully getting me out of what would surely be a large bar brawl .
Because it started as piercing damage in the UA it was introduced in, and WOTC changed the damage type afterward. Probably because of some truly well thought out survey results...lol
I have a character that is an aarakocra ranger with a fighting style of druidic warrior. Since the aarakocra uses talons for natural weapons, would it be reasonable to assume that primal savagery would augment the damage as an action? I would hate to think that a human would gain a greater increase in potential damage for using his transformed fingernails versus a pair of transformed talons that should be considered as a bird-like creature's fingernails.
Essentially, all I need to know is if primal savagery is a strict transformation or a flexible augmentation.
Primal savagery only does what it says (a melee spell attack with damage and scaling all listed in the spell), not anything else such as augmenting your other melee (natural) weapon attacks. They don't combine.
That's a real shame. I can imagine many DM's allowing it to augment, though. It's not nearly enough to break the game. That's why I'm glad the rulebooks are only suggestions outside of league play. Thanks for letting me know, in case I have a DM that's by the books.
Nah, it is a bit too much better than every other cantrip then. I prefer playing it how it is intended.